Fujifilm announces weather-resistant XF 50-140mm F2.8

Fujifilm has announced its second weather-resistant X-series zoom lens, the Fujinon XF 50-140mm F2.8 R LM OIS WR. Designed to accompany the water- and dust-resistant Fujifilm X-T1, the lens offers an equivalent 76-213mm range on Fuji's X-series interchangeable lens cameras - essentially equivalent to a popular 70-200mm telephoto zoom on full frame.

Built with 23 elements in 16 groups, the 50-140mm uses an internal zoom design so that the lens maintains the same overall length as it zooms. The lens features two OIS elements in conjunction with a high-performance gyro sensor and unique stabilization algorithm, inspiring Fujifilm reps to make some pretty confident claims about IS performance of something in the realm of 5 stops by CIPA standards when we last saw them. Additionally, autofocus is driven by the 'world's first' triple linear motor for faster autofocus and quieter operation. The Fujifilm XF 50-140mm F2.8 R LM OIS WR will be available in December for $1599.95.

FUJINON XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WRThe new FUJINON XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR has a focal length equivalent to 76-213mm, and a constant F2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range. The length of the lens barrel remains constant throughout the entire zoom range, and features a weather resistant and dust-resistant finish that can also work in temperatures as low as 14°F. Thanks to a high-performance gyro sensor, a unique image stabilization algorithm and the bright F2.8 aperture, hand-held photography is possible in a wider range of shooting conditions. The XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR also now uses the world's first Triple Linear Motor for fast and quiet autofocusing and shooting.

The FUJINON XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR has a lens construction of 23 glass elements in 16 groups, which features five ED lens elements, and one Super ED lens element with low dispersion to substantially reduce chromatic aberrations. The XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR also uses a new Nano-GI (Gradient Index) coating technology that ensures this high-performance lens delivers the outstanding imaging results that photographers have come to expect from the award-wining X-Series.

FUJINON XF56mmF1.2 R APD (Apodization)The new FUJINON XF56mmF1.2 R APD (Apodization) is a fast and nearly silent lens for FUJIFILM X-Series CSC's that has a maximum aperture of F1.2 to make it the world's brightest autofocus lens for digital cameras with an APS-C sensor. In addition, the new apodizing filter makes it the ideal choice for portrait photography where every detail is crystal clear, with images set on a gorgeous bokeh with smooth outlines for pictures with a three-dimensional feel.

The XF56mm F1.2 R APD is constructed of 11 glass elements in eight groups, including one aspherical glass molded lens element and two extra low dispersion lens elements. Spherical aberrations are corrected by the aspherical glass element to deliver high resolution at the maximum aperture setting. Additionally, thanks to the combination of two extra-low dispersion lens elements and three cemented lens elements, chromatic aberrations are greatly reduced.

FUJINON XF50-140mmF2.8 (76-213mm) R LM OIS WR key features:

FUJIFILM X-Mount is compatible with all FUJIFILM interchangeable system cameras

Being blunt though - are you an optical engineer? All modern lenses have more elements than past to get around some of the defects we all hate. Plus new kinds of glass improve transmission. I think what we really should care about is if the lens makes sense to use and performs well enough to justify the price. Counting elements is completely arbitrary.

No one will enter just for this, but there are likely many who were waiting for this to start buying in because it was a necessity for their work. You could survive with the 2.8-4 kit lens and primes to replace a 2.8 constant on the wide end, but they really had nothing to get you a decent =200mm shot in a dark room.

Don't forget the A7 + 70-200/4, which can cost anywhere from $2800 to $3200.And here is the problem. Most Fuji enthusiasts will prefer cheaper, slower, lighter 55-200/3.5-4.8 lens, and those on the other end, who need faster glass with higher resolution will opt for FF 70-200/2.8 lenses. So the customer base for that lens is going to be small. Probably, Fuji will discount this lens to around $1000 to get some sales boost.

Disagree…more often consumers with little knowledge end up buying “Mercedes” (In spite of the rep showing them entry level material)…just because they can!? Do you realize how much disposible income baby boomers have on the average?

There seems to be an automatic assumption that everyone buys into mirrorless because it's smaller, therefore lenses like this are pointless.

I would guess many of these people have not stopped to think there may be a whole host of other reasons why somebody owns a mirrorless camera, of which size may just be a small part of. Even taking size into account, you can still have a very compact system when required (i.e. X-E2/35mm 1.4), but that doesn't discount bigger lenses like this, particuarly as there are a lot of pros using Fuji X gear now, particuarly for weddings.

Even with this lens in their bag, an X-T1, this, and a bunch of the X primes is still going to be significantly lighter and smaller than a DSLR setup.

I personally shoot with a Sony a7, size isn't on my radar at all, in fact I bolt a big LA-EA4 adaptor on it and use a Sigma 35 1.4 and Zeiss 135 1.8.

Re: "Even with this lens in their bag, an X-T1, this, and a bunch of the X primes is still going to be significantly lighter and smaller than a DSLR setup." I dare to doubt it.As has already been said, this telezoom is huge, same or even bigger than DSLR lenses: http://img01.quesabesde.com/media/img/noti/0075/fuji_50_140mm_01.jpgIf I take Fuji X-T1 plus a set of lenses to cover different FL, there is no significnat difference.Example (sorry, there are not exactly comparable lenses available):Fuji X-T1 + 14mm/2,8 + 35mm/1,4 + 56/1,2 + 50-140/2,8 = 2,26 kgPentax K-50 + 14mm/2,8 + 31mm/1,8 + 55/1,4 + 50-135/2,8 = 2,47 kg.So is this what you call "significantly lighter"?And if I didn´t consider the speed, I could take the Limited primes: 15mm + 21mm + 40mm + 70 mm, that weigh alltogether 550 g.So the summary: if you want to go mirrorless because of light primes, they are also available for DSLRs; if you want fast zooms for mirrorless, they are the same weight as DSLR lenses.

Compare the Canon 35mm f/1.4 and the Fuji f/1.4 for weight. Not all the lenses are that much smaller/lighter, but some of them are worlds apart.

Sure a lens which is huge in all other systems like this one will still be huge for Fuji, but relatively it'll be pretty small, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't buy into the system for all it's other particularly-small lenses.

FWIW I also appreciate that all the Fuji lenses are APSC-only. FF isn't necessary anymore, and Canon doesn't make a good selection of EF-S primes (there's no 35mm WTF CANON!?!?) so there's no way in that system to save money and weight and you end up lugging around huge FF lenses when you shouldn't have to.

Fuji's dedication to APSC also means they put their full expertise into the "crop" lenses, whereas Canon has and probably will never make an "L" lens that's EF-S.

Quite a narrow statement regarding FF. Why would FF be any less necessary now and why are they still being manufactured and sold? Other than the advantage of size of my mirror less system nothing has yet to come close to the spontaneity and ease of use as my FF DSLR's.

Don't agree with you on FF. I am a crop shooter but I have shot FF on occasion. The results to me are that FF is simply better in almost every aspect. Not so much if you need more DOF but otherwise I find per pixel sharpness much better and high ISO performance at least 1.5 - 2 stops better.

Well if you compare with original lens...no. FF option with 1 body and two F2.8 zoom setup starts around 5.5 to 6K. Although the short Fuji F2.8 zoom is not out yet, You can easily estimate the whole set will cost around 4K.

The price difference disappear when third party lens come into play which Fuji have none for their zooms while the other has the Tamron SP(s) which bring the cost down to a FF setup to aboout 4.5K

The story doesn't change when you go DX because canon and nikon only make 2.8 zooms for FX, well except Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm 2.8G which is a rip off. And of course when you pair a D7100 with Tamron(s), you will most likely have a setup cheaper than fuji.

The story does change since D7100 (the best and most expensive Nikon APSC) is cca. 900 eur, whereas X-T1 is 1200 eur. And don´t forget the Pentax, not only K-3 is cheaper than X-T1, also it´s zooms are APSC and cheaper than Fuji/Nikon/Canon lenses.

X-T1 is clearly better built than D7100, which I think should be compared to d300 series (due to full magnesium build). And D7100's US MSRP is $1199, and X-T1's MSRP is $1299. I still want X-T1 to be cheaper (everyone does!) but still I don't think X-T1 is terribly overpriced compared to DSLRs.

If you want the smallest lenses.... then... there is always Pentax Q. They have a telephoto zoom lens that weighs only 90 grams, and costs around $250. I think it is called the "06 Telephoto Zoom" lens.

Somehow, I think this Fuji lens on a Fuji X camera would do a better job of it.

If it is OK to bring up FF lenses, then it is also OK to bring up smaller formats too.

This lens is often compared to the Panasonic 35-100 in the comments and I totally understand that. But I have a feeling it will later be compared to the upcoming Zuiko 40-150 f2.8, despite the difference in range due to crop factors, because of their similar prices, release dates and perceived prestige among their respective brand loyalists.

Looks like a nice lens. The excellent, but discontinued, SIgma 50-150 weighs 1350 g. (What does Sigma put in those lenses?) If this new one has as good IQ as the Sigma one, Fuji shooters should be happy campers. Nearly a Kilogram is not too bad IMO. Carry around the, recently leaked, Sigma 150-600 at 3850 g. for a few days and this one will feel like a feather. If you want high IQ and compact/light get the Pentax 50-135 f/2.8 weighing in at 685 grams. Course you'd have to stick a 816 gram K3 or similar on the back of it. The Pentax has better coatings and fully WR and performs a bit better than its Tokina cousin according to many. I bet this new 50-140 turns out to be a very good lens for Fuji shooters.

Personally..this lens is unnecessary on any mirror less system not only fuji.... Unlike sony..most of them who use fuji [ even olympus]i..are either enthusiasts/ pros..they usually use primes.. so its better fuji adds few real macro lens[ not like 60mm 1:2] to its already fantastic primes... I am looking for 90mm macro

But its my perception.. I have seen many comments..in fuji fans pages..that they want/waiting for this kind of lens..it may be for them but certainly not for me...

If someone wants it, and is willing to pay for it, then it cannot be unnecessary. Fuji is approaching the point that Olympus and Panasonic are already at: a fairly complete lens catalog.

Once you reach that point, then you have to offer specialty lenses for people willing to pay the premium prices they command.

Panasonic is doing pretty well selling their $1,600 42.5mm f/1.2 lens. I suspect Fuji will do pretty well selling this lens too. The market for high end MILC lenses isn't huge, but it's still there. The manufacturers would be crazy not to go after it.

Your perception is correct. Many Fuji users want lenses like this. But if I was a Fuji user, I'd be like you and pass on it. Having the best cameras and lenses isn't a cheap hobby!

And your point is what? With never using the lens, experiencing the image quality, and using the five stop optical stabilization, your comment does not take into account the benefits it may offer. Sure it's a little heavier. But Fuji is building this lens for pros who need it. Go get the fuji 55-200 if you want smaller and lighter.or stick to your wonderful dslr.

watching the Fujiguys video on 50-140, it appears for the first time, Fuji also includes a total of 3(!) motors to have the fastest and silent autofocusing. The motors are placed at 120 degrees to each other. If my memory serves me right, previously, Fuji's fastest AF lenses had a maximum of 2 motors (18-55). Perhaps including the 3 motors made the lens slightly heavier. They also include a different material for the mount for sturdiness. Now I don't know how many motors Canon USM uses, but nothing autofocuses faster than Canon USM lenses, in my opinion. How good is Fuji's new AF system with 3 motors is remains to be seen

Well don't miss the forest for the trees... Fuji's X system is a fast growing APS-C size format with super high quality lenses and stand out exactly for this. If and when Canon, Nikon & Sony decide to build APS-C lenses like Fujinon 14mm f/2.8, 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, 56mm f/1.2, then we can make direct comparisons.

Is the tripod mount included in the weight for all lenses (Sony and Canon don't do it as far as I know)? Besides that, I don't care about 100-200g if the quality compensates for it.BarnET has a point in that APSC lenses need to provide higher lp/mm resolution to account for the smaller sensor size.

Is not correct to say that a mirrorless camera with a smaller sensor has no advantage in weight/size over a FF DSLR, both with equivalent telephoto lenses. For telephoto lenses with focal length less than 200mm, you should consider the weight /size of lens and camera combined, not the lenses alone.

The advantage of the smaller sensor appears more clearly for larger focal lengths. For example, a 400mm F2.8 lens for APS-C format would be equivalent to a 600mm F4 for full frame, right? Then compare the size and weight of the Nikkor lenses with those specs and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

I mentioned Nikon lenses, but you talked about Canon lenses. OK! :-)But you should have looked not only the weights but the sizes too!

For some reason the Canon 600mm F4 is an exceptionally light lens. It seems that Canon did a good job there.

To stay in the Canon camp, consider now the 400mm F4 versus the 600mm F5.6. These lenses are equivalent if used with APS-C and FF, respectively. But the 400mm F4 weighs 1940g whereas the 600mm F5.6, 4500g. The difference in weight is enormous.

It is clear to me that equivalent super telephoto lenses for APS-C format are lighter/smaller on AVERAGE . Nonetheless, if you look case-by-case, there may be exceptions.

Marty is correct. It is fun to argue about formats and "my brand is better than yours", but here it the reality...This looks to be a great lens that fills a need for many Fuji camera owners. It is a wide aperture zoom and is weather sealed. I am sure it will be very sharp. Fuji owners and those looking to buy a Fuji camera should be excited about this lens.

Forget about "dueling formats" for a moment... this looks like a great lens for Fuji X users who need a high quality telephoto zoom lens.

This solves a problem for them, and does it much more economically then selling all their gear and buying a FF DSLR plus brand new lenses. The decision to buy a MILC camera was already made, for lots of other reasons the buyer had.

When people select a system, they already know the pros and cons of each one. Especially when they are spending several thousand dollars. The option to "switch to something else" is a joke, because it assumes the buyer didn't consider it before they committed to Fuji X.

" because it assumes the buyer didn't consider it before they committed to Fuji X"

Imagine when Fuji eventually releases a 36mp or more pixels (on rumored Sony 50mp sensor) FF camera and a few FF lenses initially and generates WOW IQ over current APS-C cameras. I bet some of them will loosen that believe and want to switch but only found they have deeply invested and locked in FX lenses. That is something tons of Canon, Nikon and Sony APS-C owners faced, endured and bit the bullet when they moved to FF eventually. The difference is that Canon and Nikon didn't develop many native EF-S/DX lenses so their migration is relative easier and suffers less lose.

How much of that is marketing? Buy the new 1080p TV. No, the 3D TV is better and move up to that! No, now 4K is the best, sell your old TV and buy that?While some really need FF cameras for work, I wonder how many thousands of people fall for the marketing and expect their skills to improve simply by selling equipment and switching when instead a little more practice and maybe a new lens would be better.

I agree Marty. The Fuji system has been drawing people away from Canon and Nikon. I know a few local wedding shooters who have switched. The new 56 APD will take portraiture to a new level that Canon cant match....not to mention Fuji's nicer colors and superior DR. The lens lineup is great and is getting better.

What? this 56 APD is only equivalent to FF 85mm F1.8 lens that is much cheaper in FF camp such as EF 85/1.8. Truly there is simply no match to Canon 85L/1.2 lens with bokeh and extreme shallow DOF. There are also Sigma 85/1.4 and now the best of the best Zeiss Otus 85/1.4. And Sigma 85/1.4 Art is coming.. Sigh go back to study more and check the reality.

Qianp2k...I guess you need to do some study on what APD lenses are, and how they impact bokeh. Portaiture is not just about shallow DOF...it is about the quality of the bokeh...and in this regard, APD lenses are superb. You need to stop pretending to be an expert on everything....you simply dont have the knowledge or experience.

@Dave Luttmann: 85L F1.2 is the best known in quality of bokeh and smoothness. F1.2 lens on APS-C is only eq to F1.8 FF lens and on 16mp low-resolution APS-C sensor. It's you need to stop to pretend as an expert and has no single photo to prove your 'claimed' gear you have owned such as 'D800/X-T1/14-24G'. I have all those photos there for you to admire. Waiting to see on your newly 'claimed' 645Z photos ;-)

@Lab: FF is not necessary to be big and heavy as in A7/R/S case there are actually smaller and lighter on the same FF eq spec but absolutely better in IQ.

I always love it when newbies think buying a more expensive camera and lens will improve their photography skills. I also love it when they say "Smaller and lighter" but forget to add in the size and weight of the lens.

Absolutely no one bought into the Fuji X system because they thought it was the cheapest.

They knew it was fairly expensive, even when compared to similar APSC MILC systems from Sony and Samsung. So the "you don't save any money" chant is pretty much wasted here.

They already KNEW they weren't saving any money. But they wanted something else they weren't getting elsewhere.

That something else might have been the smaller form factor, the greater convenience for street shooting, the outstanding lenses, the better colors and DR, perhaps even the retro styling. It was one, or a combination of factors that made them pick Fuji-X over an APSC DSLR.

If anyone wants to tell them "A Canon Rebel 1200D would have been cheaper," well, they already knew that and they picked Fuji X anyway.

Exactly Marti. Unfortunately, we find a lot of people who have never used, processed files from, or even touched the equipment trolling around with negative opinions based on charts and graphs....talk about not understanding the complete user experience.

Dave, I'm not a Fuji X user, and I probably will never be one. I'm pretty much committed to M4/3. But I still get excited when I see high quality lenses like this one for any MILC system.

Competition is a very good thing for us customers. When one company ups their game, the others must follow suit. I suppose that means "everyone except Canon and Nikon" because they really aren't competing in the MILC market. However, they do the very same thing in the DSLR market, trying to stay ahead of each other and Pentax.

I too am very excited for Fuji and welcome the competition. There is rumor that Samsung (they make cameras too!) is going to release an amazing camera with the best APS sensor in the coming months. It will be fun to see if that is true and see if they can compete with Fuji in the APS mirrorless market.

If you check you will see the Sony lenses are larger not smaller. Look again. The body size difference is mostly the better focus system, better grip, and high quality OVF. The Sony lacks those but some people manually focus and don't need them so it makes a good camera for them.

Actually FE 35/2.8 is still lighter than EF 40/2.8 pancake, a bit taller but thinner.

A7R is not designed for action photos but a high resolution and high DR small camera. A7R grip is very good too that I have no issue. EVF vs OVF, each has advantage/disadvantage. For landscape, EVF has more advantages and MF is much easier with EVF. I now exclusively use EF 17mm TS-E lens on A7R as MF is easier and more accurate and exposure is more accurate when T/S out due to full-time LV. You will know when you actually use it between two cameras.

A7R body size is still much smaller, mainly in thickness. You may not see much difference in pictures but you will feel it when you hold cameras in hands side by side. After got used to A7R size/weight, 5D3 feels as a brick in hands.

I own A7 (previously A7r), Canon full frame, and Fuji XT1. I also agree that while 85L is a great lens, the 1.2 is not everything. There are special lenses that produce absolutely magical results and they are not 1.2 full frame. I know a guy who makes beautiful portraits on his APSC Sony A77 and Minolta 85/1.4G lens. Here is one example. http://club.foto.ru/gallery/images/photo/2014/08/04/2309983.jpg

All three 85/1.4 lenses you mentioned are all designed for FF and seem all are good. They all can be used on crop bodies and still will be good. Even cheap Canon 85/1.8 is pretty goodhttp://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=26

The point is that on spec this lens seems very good but a (much) cheaper 85mm prime can deliver similar nicely rendered photo on FF body and achieve shallower DOF (as in Sigma and Nikon 85/1.4 no mention more expensive 85L). Such good lens will only be limited and locked by 1.5x crop body.

Still as I said, for a crop system (camera + lens) to compete to FF system, you'd need a much better lens that inevitable to be big/heavy and expensive and still not necessary better than likely cheaper/lighter FF counterpart.

True David. One can get excellent seperation with aps-c sized sensors. I've done enough comparisons over the years between the formats in large print and people simply cannot tell the difference when challenged. I've done weddings and portraits professionally for more than two decades....and now the vast majority is done on my Fuji gear because it gets the job done with excellent results. Qianp2k is a longtime Fuji and aps-c basher....most often with no experience with the gear he bashes. Debate with him is pointless.

There was a recent article with a long list of wedding photographers and other professionals using mirco four thirds (slightly smaller than APS), and all said they had no issues getting the desired DoF they needed. With the latest Fuji lenses almost everyone will be satisfied with the shallow DoF if that is what they desire. Fuji is doing a great job and those with Fuji cameras have a reason to be excited.

DL, you're rubbish Canon and FF basher actually. You downplay FF advantage but over exaggerate MF no mention you don't own any digital MF back despite you claimed that we have heard tons of bogus ones. Nobody including me ever said Fuji and APS-C cannot deliver to meet to someone's expectation that after of all it's subjective. But FF only can do better and not necessarily heavier/bigger or even more expensive.

" not necessarily heavier/bigger or even more expensive."One could buy a new A5000 or GM1 and an F/1.2 or F/.95 legacy lens. Which FF camera is the same size and weight as you say? Which FF camera costs $450 like the A5000?

I am actually talking lenses such as the new Fuji 56/1.2 R APO compared to cheaper/lighter/smaller FF counterpart. If you really have to include bodies, then you can get similar priced used 5D1, a bit more expensive 1Ds2, 5D2. And F1.2 and F0.95 will run as true F1.2 and F0.95 without crop magnification and can achieve truly very shallow DOF and creamier background blur.

DR is not that critical in most portraiture photos. 5D is very capable to generate stunning portrait photos if you search and you will find tons of them. In general FF cameras even older models generate more pleasing portraiture photos that can achieve shallower DOF and creamier background blur. No mentioned now you can find used A7 below $1K. The money you saved on the similar FF eq spec'ed lenses can compensate a bit more expensive FF body and still you will get better photos. It's not a secrete that I am a strong FF believer. Although I never suggest crop cannot generate good or even great photos, but FF only does better and not necessarily bigger/heavier or even more expensive if on the same spec'ed.

You keep saying "not necessarily bigger/heavier or even more expensive" yet you have provided nothing to back up that silly claim. I've asked a few times, but all you did was mention a a very old camera 3x larger/heavier than the new A5000.Thanks for proving Dave right. Good bye.

You are keep shifting subjects, now switched to Sony A5000 instead of these two newly announced Fuji lenses. Can they be used on A5000? I doubt it. 5D/5D2/1Ds2 with 85/1.8 or Sigma 84/1.4 will not take inferior portrait photos than Fuji 56/1.2 on Fuji bodies and not necessarily more expensive if not cheaper. Many legacy 85mm prime such as relative cheap FD 85L/1.2 on A7 will be certainly better than any APS-C 85mm eq portrait photos.

Sure Fuji does try hard to develop these wonderful X lenses that nobody denied but limited and locked in inferior APS-C sensors. As I said imagine if next year Fuji releases a FF body ;-)

As DL, check his bogus claims, well known in DPR forums, "win" by a mouth.

I just sold my Sony A7 (mailed it to the new happy buyer) and kept Fuji XT1 and Canon 6D. The lack of compact lenses for FE mount meant I picked Fuji over Sony at this time. With Fuji, I got 12mm/2.8, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 18-55 and 18-135 (for vacations). 90/2 will complete it for me on a Fuji mount.

FE 35 and 55 are pretty compact. FE 24-70/4.0 OSS is still much smaller/lighter than DSLR 24-70/4.0 IS/VR. More FE lenses are coming in relative fast pace such as FE 16-35/40 OS will be announced tomorrow (that I will be interested)...

After spoiled in FF IQ (since 5D1 at end of 2007), I cannot go back to crop (I bought 60D and EOS-M much laters for smaller/lighter package in traveling). But thanks A7-series, FF is not necessarily big and heavy so I enjoy light/small package in traveling without sacrificing IQ.

IQ is stunning especially with 36mp A7r such as this one with FE 55 at 100% cropped. I am a happy A7R owner.

Will wait and see future 6D II and A7 II (not A7r II). If 6D II doesn't satisfy me, I'd likely to get A7 II that will be based on A6000 AF engine and at least 24mp and likely can shoot 12 fps. Then I will have pure FF ML camera pairs in traveling, light and small and still will have great IQ with FE 16-35 (hope as good as or close to EF 16-35/4.0 IS, FE 35/55 and FE 70-200 plus special lens 17mm TS-E.

The Canon 40mm F/2.8 is smaller than the FE 35 F/2.8. Any 50mm F/1.8 is smaller than the FE 55 F/1.8. It seems to really bother you when people sell FF cameras in favor of the Fuji. It is funny that you think the FE 70-200 is small too (you will still need a big bag)! Oh well. I am very happy for Absolutic!

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3620926FE 35 on A7R vs 35/2.0 IS on 5D3 and the former set is sharper even at pixel level, not because 35/2.0 IS in inferior but because of A7R sensor. I have bunch of FE 35 samples on A7R in full size in my Flickr site. 40/2.8 feature is sharp @2.8 cross entire frame but not very impressive after stopdown

to me 70-200FE was a fail. too large, larger than Canon's 70-200L F4 IS. And Canon 70-200 is sharp at 200mm. Sony's 70-200FE according to all the reviews need to be stopped a little at 200mm for ultimate sharpness. After I was spoiled with Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS II, which is sharp at 2.8 at every focal length, the Sonys 70-200FE is quite disappointing. Instead, I paid $70 for Minolta 70-210/F4 and used it on LA-EA4. I posted a photo I took with that setup in Sony A7 group in facebook and received a lot of praise. BTW Minolta 70-210/4 is half the weight of 70-200FE.

Now we have not seen official review of Fuji 50-140/2.8 other than from FujiGuys Billy who says it is amazingly sharp at tele end at 2.8 and claims this will be called a classic lens. Of course he is Fuji rep, so not necessarily believe everything he says, but based on Fuji's record, I will venture to say that Fuji 50-140 will be SUPERIOR to Sony 70-200FE at every focal length.

I've owned Sony 35/2.8 and 55/1.8. In fact I recently went on vacation where I shot Sony A7 and Fuji XT1 side-by-side every day. And in February, I went on vacation with Sony A7r and Fuji XE2 and shot them side-by-side. So unlike many people that own just one of these cameras, I actually shot them with best lenses side-by-side at various lighting levels: beach, ocean, low light club, very low light, etc. 55FE is a very fine lens, especially on A7r. The problem is it is focusing very slow. One of my main frustration with A7r is that I have a very fast running 2 year old son. And A7r is incapable of autofocus fast enough to take a picture of him, even outside, because he won't stand still. I tried and I tried and I tried. On the other hand, with my Fuji XT1/56 1.2 I can track my son running TO ME at 8fps and get shot after shot after shot in focus. It is amazing. http://brodsky.smugmug.com/Family/Seanbrodsky/Sean-2014/Sept-Dec-2014-1/i-m3jHSwB/0/X3/DSCF1098-X3.jpg

qianp2k lost all creditably after repeating, FF is "not necessarily heavier/bigger or even more expensive" than the A5000 which sells for $450. All he came up with was a old used 5D with a worse performing sensor that is 3x as large. What happened to the "not heavier/bigger" part? :)Anyway it is safe to ignore him. Absolutic, it looks like you made the best choice for what you want, and good luck!

Lab, you are very good in shifting topic. You shifted topic to Sony from Fuji and this lens. What I said "FF is not necessarily heavier/bigger or even more expensive" is for lenses that the crop lenses on the same FF eq spec are only bigger, heavier and likely more expensive, exactly as this Fuji 50-140/2.8 lens when compare to FF 70-200/4.0 lenses. I quoted 5D is not for size/weight but on your $500 price tag from Sony A5100 (feel sorry for you that you have to borrow from Sony for your claim not Fuji ;-) Stop your rubbish topic shifting and stay in OP.

The reality is that A7/R with FE 70-200 is smaller/lighter than this Fuji 50-140 on X-T1, and take lots better IQ photos, period.

@Absolutic You compare Apple to Orange. A7R is landscape/studio camera not action camera. A6000 AF is better than X-T1. So I am waiting to see A7 II that very likely based on A6000 AF and likely can shoot 10-12 fps on a new sensor next year. A7R IQ destroys X-T1 at another side. They are two very different cameras. I actually shoot most lenses even FE lenses in MF on tripod for landscape as many landscape photog do.

If running kids is your priority, personally I'd stay in DSLRs. 70D/D7100/D5300/6D/D610 AF is only more reliable and consistent and could be cheaper (together with lenses) than those ML. I don't use ML to shoot any action photos. I will still carry my trusted 5D3 and 1D3 into another Africa safari and in airshow etc action events. ML is only for traveling on landscape and relative still subjects.

@Absolutic FE 70-200 (I don't own yet) has better spec than Canon EF 70-200L/4.0 IS (that I own). Yes at 200mm it's a bit soft at edges/corners but not in center. Otherwise FE 70-200 is obviously sharper than Canon copy in mid-range such as at 100mm and 135mm on DXO test. For some reasons, Sony optimized its zoom lenses in mid-range, another sample is FE 24-70/4.0 OSS. As I said ML zoom lenses don't have size/weight advantage for tele lenses but only for WA/UWA lenses due to flange distance. I might get this lens if I moved to pure Sony ML FF gear for traveling if I get A7 II instead of 6D II next year, or I still can use excellent EF 70-200L/4.0 IS. I also own F2.8 IS II version.

Oh geeze. Another person who doesn't realize DxO tests Lens/Cameras combinations and not the lens by itself. To be fair compare the Nikon 70-200F4 lens on the D800 vs. the A7R. Sony still has an advantage because the D800 has an AA filter, but the smaller Nikon scores higher. Now check the E-M1 sensor vs, that A7 and notice that for DR the difference is less that 1 stop for most ISOs and for noise it is a little more than 1 stop. Now check the size of the 35-100mm lens, which is 1 stop faster, to your ginormous 70-200mm lens. See how easy it is to kill your arguments?Anyway, I agree with all the OTHER posters here.

Another sample that you keep shifting topic. You brought into Nikon 70-200/4.0 VR and mFT that never mentioned in earlier discussion, gee. From what I have read, Nikon 70-200/4.0 VR is the best in 70-200/4.0 zoom market (but also heaviest), follow closely by FE 70-200 and EF 70-200L/4.0 IS (that is also oldest and lightest) as shown in DXO tests.

A7 has about at least 1.5 stops (not 1 stop) advantage over mFT although it's even not the best implemented 24mp FF camera where Nikon D610 is the best. mFT 35-100/2.8 lens is only eq to FF 70-200/5.6 lens per perspective of DOF and total light gathering. You need to study and understand 'equivalency'. Personally I don't care A7 and not very impressed in current aged Sony 24mp sensor, not because of 24mp that is sufficient to me, therefore I picked up A7R but I will wait and see next A7 II that will based on A6000 alike AF and new sensor. I hope next 24mp sensor (or slight more) will be AA-less, further better in DR and high ISO.

"A7 has about at least 1.5 stops (not 1 stop) advantage over mFT "It is easy to see from DxO that DR is about 1/2 stop better while noise is about 1.5. Overall saying 1 stop is pretty fair. Obviously, your "light gathering" argument has little to do with reality since we looking at actual results from DxO. The 35-100 is clearly much smaller and lighter which goes against your FF is about the same is size and weight. btw, I have the D600 (same as D610), so I am glad you mentioned it. It is heavier/larger/more expensive than my other cameras so I rarely use it. As you say it is better than the A7 in every way though.The Fuji looks like a great option instead. I can see why people are excited about it. It is great to see so many FF users switching to these smaller, lighter systems.

As I said I am not very impressed in current 24mp FF Sony sensor, the main reason I picked up A7R over A7 not because I desperately need 36mp. As a matter of fact, Canon 20mp FF sensor in 6D is noticeably better than Sony 24mp in high ISO, same true from Nikon own 16mp FF sensor in Df and D4s although in lower resolution.

mFT F2.8 lens is eq to FF 5.6 lens from perspective of total light gathering and DOF. If sensors are the same except size, then a mFT 2.8 lens will perform the same as a FF F5.6 lens on respective systems.

I am glad you like Fuji. My only opinions are lots of hypes surrounds it. Its faked ISO marking (that is 1/2-2/3 EV undersesative to standard ISO) is a real issue on my opinion. As I said with Sony FF ML lines, photog like me don't have to sacrifice IQ over smaller/lighter system, a win-win situation. I believe next generation of Sony FF ML will overcome some shortages in current generation and will be excellent, to be announced in next Jan.

Lets face it... mirrorless size/weight advantage applies only when prime lenses combined with these bodies. There is no way to skip the law of physic & optics... the larger the sensor the biggest the optical elements, the fastest the aperture the heavier the glass. So simple. This lens is a nice addition to Fuji's line up, im pretty sure its gonna kick ass !

Panny 35-100mm f/2.8 is made for 30% smaller sensor. Although f/2.8 is the same in terms of per pixel light transmission, an APS-C f/2.8 lens gathers more light than a m43 f/2.8 lens, because it needs to feed light in a bigger sensor. Thats why 15-45mm f/2.8 lens for Pentax Q is weighting only 90gr...

This is definitely where any size convenience of mirrorless ends. You really need to go to smaller sensored cameras for a lens this speed to be decently-enough smaller. At this size, choosing DSLR or mirrorless is a matter of optical or electronic finder preference, not size.

The Panasonic is 30% smaller and for DoF will be about 2/3rds of a stop different. Light gather is also 2/3rds of stop different but since sensors vary it is hard to say what the real difference is. In the real world they will be very close. That size difference is not close though IMHO.

The key there is the aperture. There are no F/1.6 APS zooms and the results would be significantly different than F/2.8.The REAL question is does only 2/3rds of stop make a bigger difference than 30% smaller in size?Of course some will argue the E-M1 sensor (for DR) is less than 2/3rds of stop different than APS (And better in a few instances).

@KGP: Some will, some will not. For cinematographers using a huge rig where the GH4 is just only a small part, the bulk and wight of such a lens might be acceptable. For still photographers, who bought a m4/3 because of its size it hardly would make sense.A small m4/3 gives no balance for such a lens. And don't forget - such a lens would become ridiculosly expensive and have no practical advantages over a 2.8 70-200 on a FF Camera. Similar DOF and no better motion stop capabilities as you can go higher in ISO with FF.

@Summi Luchs: I totally agree with this. Every system in the market has his pros an cons. My point is that you cannot have it all in one system and that there's no such thing as a perfect combo (camera & lens(es). Generalizations, equalizations and direct comparisons between photographic formats are useless & meaningless. Based on these, im pretty sure that there are people who find this lens a perfect match for their needs. Αnd im also pretty sure that they dont care if Pannasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 is smaller, lighter & cheaper.

Yes the size and weight advantage of mirror-less is not there with telephone lenses. However, those who have adopted a mirrorless system still need the option to use a longer lens when they need it. For those who maintain a mirror-less camera in addition to their full DSLR system, these longer lenses may not be relevant. But for those looking to switch entirely to mirrorless, the lens lineup needs to be more diverse and cover a lot of different needs.

We we know they are around 200mm long, but the ones I know of are not very sharp until about F/8 while the Panasonic is sharp wide open. Diameter is the biggest factor too because it accounts for 2 dimensions. I can fit the Panasonic in a pocket. Try that with a 200mm FF lens.

M43 has some good lens like the 35-100 2.8 only let down by the sensor. It is amazing how Panasonic can make that lens so light.

Although the price for this lens is high, but then I look at Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS....Fuji price is not bad. Things like this lens will always be expensive. Lucky I did not wait for this and bought XF 55-200 F3.5-4.8

What's so special about the 35-100? It performs rather like a super-zoom with huge vignetting and significant geometric distortions, unlike the Sigma 50-150 OIS which is superior in every aspect. And cheaper, too! Of course it's bigger and heavier (much like this Fuji), but then again it's an APS-C lens instead of 4/3, which seems to be overlooked by many commentors here.

According to numerous test pictures and example pictures, the 35-100 does not have LoCA, which seems to indicate that it is a true APO lens, or somehow achieved what a true APO lens can achieve in effect, something of a rarity in fast zooms. The distortion and vignetting (the adjective 'huge' is purely subjective and meaningless) are easily corrected in post or even in camera, unlike LoCA which current algorithms are still struggling with. Lens optical design should be holistic with the cameras the lens is designed for, hence spending a lot of weight, size, quality compromises and money on things that can be easily dealt with in computers and ignoring issues that computers find difficult is very bad design, from which the Panasonic does not suffer.

An APO is surely a great thing (does anybody know whether the Fuji is an APO, too?), but relying on post-processing to fix major flaws is bad design, AFAIC. Vignetting is about 1.5EV wide open and distortion more than 4% at the wide end and almost 2% in the middle of the range, which is clearly visible, so I called it 'huge'. Btw, there're not that many APOs out there, because special glass is expensive. I would not call that bad design, albeit I'm totally with you that LoCA is one of the most annoying distortions.

An essential lens for every system, too bad so far only m43, Pentax and old FF SLR systems had native lenses like that.But at that size and price, it does not exactly make a lot of sense. 3 times heavier than Pana 35-100/2.8! Only 30% lighter than FF 70-200/2.8! And 60% more expensive than Sigma 50-150/2.8.

Just from the technical data (except size and weight ;-) ) this lens looks amazing. The amount of special glass and the other technical specs are absolutely HighEnd - no question here.

However, I still have and am in the selling process of the Canon 70-200L IS II lens, and I am not sure if I really want such a big lens again (I know, compared to the Canon it is smaller). But possibly when I do more theater photography again, then this lens might come quite handy.

I am really curious about the first pics and the optical performance - I expect only the best.

The price is of course kind of ambitious, but the technical data are also promising.

I had that Pentax lens and a K5. You are right. To me that DA* 50-135mm had the best image quality of any lens I used. The only downfall was that AF motor. Now that I have an X-T1 I was hoping that the Fuji lens would be like the DA* but with faster Af.

Was the Pentax 50-135 really that good ? I had its sister lens, the Tokina 50-135 (same optical formula, same company at that time, maybe different coatings and QC) and wasn't too happy with it. Lots of CA. Spoiling portraits against white bachgrounds. Difficult to correct with the tools available years ago.

Suspect the equivalence brigade will be out gunning for this, There is still nothing that sucks up light like the big 2.8 zooms for full frame that have been the backbone of professional photographers kit for years, and in comparison this is bit big and a bit expensive.

Yeah, came here to say this. The article says, "essentially equivalent to a popular 70-200mm telephoto zoom on full frame," and that's true, but it's equivalent to the popular 70-200 f/4 in terms of depth-of-field (important for the portraiture this will be doing) and total light gathered... it's not equivalent to the much more popular 70-200 f/2.8 lenses.

This lens could have been 400g easily. Yep, less than a pound. And it could be small too! If only they had used a three lens element design in a sliding cardboard tube, all the weight savings they could have made!Alas! They decided to weight down each and every past and future Fuji X camera owner by releasing on all of them that epic optic.

The Pentax/Tokina desgin did suffer from chromatic aberations. This lens is likely to better corrected. That makes it larger.

Then this design has to be sharper since the Pentax/tokina had some trouble with 16mp sensors already. sharpening up nicely (especially in the centre) at F4. But my bet is this has to be sharp on 24mp Apsc as well. If fuji wants this lens to be future proof.

The Pentax is rated at 3.5 stars, half a star higher than the Tokina at Photozone, likely due to Pentax SMC coatings. Yes, it has some CA, easily corrected in camera or in post. Ask users what they think of the DA*50-135mm. This Fuji lens will maintain its idealized perfection until it is tested and found to have flaws, just like every other lens.

Just because 10mp was the norm when a lens was designed doesn't mean it can't stand up to 24mp. That's just FUD. EPhotoZine tested the DA*50-135 on a K-5 IIs, 16mp, no blur filter and said "This lens has been around a while now, but it still manages to hold its own well against the very latest lenses available from other manufacturers."

From the dawn of mirrorless cameras we have been told their advantage over big heavy DSLRs is the smaller size and weight: smaller bodies that do not need mirror and mirror box and smaller lenses that have smaller flange distance. So let´s take two examples:Fujinon 50-140/2,8: 995 g, 72mm filter threadPentax DA 50-135/2,8: same speed, similar FL, but 685 g and 67mm filter thread (just adding that it is a DA* lens, i.e. Pentax´s top and optically perfect, plus iit´s weather sealed).So where is now the advantage of CSC/CSC lenses?The point is: if CSC manufacturers want to build a fast lens, especially zoom with longer FL, the laws of physics are the same as for DSLR lenses and mirrorless lenses will be the same size and weight as DSLR lenses. The only difference is that the combo CSC + telezoom will handle worse than DSLR (with big comfortable grip) + telezoom. ;-) P.S. I like Fuji lenses and I could imagine having some (e.g. 56mm/1,2). But on a DSLR. ;-)

The difference is you have a choice. You can use small lenses if you want. Fast zoom's will always be big. What is the size and weight compared to an Canon/Nikon APS-C lens with the same aperture and range?

Thorgrem: I don´t follow Canikon that closely, since I am a Pentaxian. But Pentax generally has smaller lenses than C/N, partially because C/N lenses are designed mostly also for FF sensors, whereas Pentax can build smaller lenses designed for APSC only. But even if Pentax has FF lenses, they are still smaller than C/N equivalents, e.g. my Pentax 100mm/2,8 Macro is a fullframe lens, but is way smaller and lighter. So switching from C/N DSLR to Pentax DSLR can bring the same benefit as switching from C/N DSLR to mirrorless. ;-)

That´s is why I believe M 4/3 is the best mirrorless system: 4/3 sensor allows for smaller bodies and lenses (while still delivering decent picture quality), thus gaining size/weight advantage over APSC DSLRs, something a CSC with APSC sensor cannot achieve. So if I ever switched to mirrorless, it would be something like Oly E-M10: great sensor, small body but with VF and lots of controls plus enormous choice of nice small lenses.But then I look at all the small and beautifull Pentax Limited lenses and I know I´m gonna stay. ;-)

When I take the E-PL3 we have at home you are right that ISO above 1600 is better avoided. But the latest sensors (those in E-M1/E-M10/E-P5) are performing much better, just like APSC sensors (not the best ones like Fuji X-Trans, but definitely better than 18 MPx sensors of Canon).As regards the DOF every crop is a compromise of course, but when size is crucial, 4/3 sensor seems like the best compromise of size and picture quality.

> "So if I ever switched to mirrorless, it would be something like Oly E-M10"

Make sure you handle one first. I cannot tolerate a camera with no grip. The EM10 was uncomfortable to hold and the buttons were annoyingly tiny. I bought a Sony a6000, better AF, better sensor, better controls, superior ergonomics. But I'm keeping my K-3, that's for sure.

Telephoto size has more to do with the size of the sensor than being mirrorless. Wide angle lenses may be smaller/lighter on a mirrorless because the flange focal length is shorter, which allows for a simpler optical formula.

Don't know about others but I don't hate Fujifilm. I love their sensors. But you have to face it: the weight and price of this lens are somewhat ridiculous when compared to its peers. It's designed for APS-C mirrorless mount!

@photonuts: that to me is the whole point: the weight and price are not ridiculous at all. Lenssize won't change all that much when you keep the same sensor size. That is why m43s, from that perspective, is more sensible. It has a smaller body and smaller lenses. And you really start to note this with larger and faster zooms.Having said that: the Ol 40-150 seems to be huge too....

" But you have to face it: the weight and price of this lens are somewhat ridiculous when compared to its peers. It's designed for APS-C mirrorless mount!"

Sure, but there are different markets out there. Going for light kit is one market. Pro is another. Of course Pro and light would be great, but nevertheless they are distinct markets with different priorites.

And with today's high MP sensors, the new lenses need substantially more glass to do them justice. I've examined a lot of DxO lens reviews and those older FF f2.8 lenses are in great need of updating.

This will be an acid test for Fuji. They've no doubt, in a stunningly short period of time, birthed a very broad range of first quality lenses. The 'Road Map' included this fast 70-200 equivalent, and now it will be here soon. IF it's as good as its competition, this will be one more solid addition to this system that they've built in the space of only a few years.

And one thing to remember: All the X-mount Fujinon lenses are indeed 'system' lenses, and their quality exists on two fronts because of this system nature:

First, the quality of the glass, design, and construction of these pieces themselves (and don't forget, Fuji is a BIG player in broadcast, cinema, even satellite optics), and

Second, these were expressly designed, clean sheet, for a digital system, to operate in concert with firmware in the cameras for additional corrections and tweaks not possible in the hardware aspect of the lenses' construction.

Did you even read the press release?? The Fuji has OIS (Optical Image Stabilization)....it is also only a 72mm filter thread compared to the Canon's 77mm. Also...it's a f2.8 lens from a speed perspective...not everything is about DOF.

Again: to me this proves the best choice for mirrorless system are either the 1"or the m43 lenses. The Panasonic, which I have, is wS and DS and it also weighs so little. The reason I chose this system already in 2008. I have never regretted it.

But to each their own: Fuji users knew probably that for these lenses, not much in size and weightloss should be expected. So it fits their needs and I have very little doubt this is another stunning lens with excellent IQ!

@Clint Dunn: Canon 70-200L/4.0 IS is 67mm filter size, 70-200L/2.8 IS II is 77mm filter size, former is even less than 1/2 weight of latter. I own both Canon versions.

Nevertheless due to 1.5x crop factor (pixel enlargement), Canon, Nikon and Sony 70-200/4.0 zoom on their respective FF bodies will still outresolve and sharper than this lens on 16mp Fuji APS-C cameras.

Fuji premium APS-C lenses are nice on spec but also very expensive and heavy (heavier than eq FF counterparts). In reality they are still inferior on Fuji APS-C when compared to FF counterpart. I am wondering when Fuji eventually finally release FF bodies, those heavily invested in Fuji APS-C lenses have been already locked into and would be very costly to re-invest into FF lineup.

MPIX is the peak perceptual sharpness at specific aperture and specific FL stop. Measurement | Sharpness | FieldMap is lots more meaningful that you can see 24-70L II on 5D3 is sharper than Sigma on D7100 in every FL stop, at respective wide open or eq aperture. Still Sigma 18-35/1.8 at eq DOF and total light gathering is still heavier and shorter at both sides.

For crop camera, it's a upperhill battle to compete to FF camera and has to overcome more crop penalty due to pixel enlargement by a) a much better lens (that is only heavier and larger usually) and lots more pixels.

Don't forget D7100 is 24mp AA-less sensor while sensor in 5D3 only has 22mp with AA filter on older technology. But still FF is fullframe and has crop advantage due to pixels are less enlarged and collect more total light.

I just used the 18-35mm as reference that these levels of sharpness can be attained on crop.

And ofcourse it's a uphill struggle.The lens MTF needs to be double to achieve the same results. albeit it only has to do this on a smaller area.This means all flaws are enlarged and it has to be very well corrected.

Fullframe has more potential in this regard. But don't write This lens off. As it is plausible that it will create compareable results to the Canon lens on it's full-frame body in the near future.

Nikon and Sony with their 36mp fullframe sensors will remain out of reach.

But FF still has at least one-stop high ISO (also low ISO per SNR measurement) advantage over APS-C even from Canon 5D3 and 6D on outdated sensor technology. If sensors are on the same spec (QE...), true F2.8 in 1.5x crop is only equivalent to F4.2 on FF per not only DOF but total light gathering that determines SNR (noise/grain over details or signal/noise ratio).

70-200L/4.0 IS is very sharp on Canon FF bodies that you can find tons of photos from this wonderful zoom. DXO p-mpix is just a reference. Sharpness is only one factor there are other factors that FF is also superior - smoothness, color tonality and rarely mentioned perspective (more 3-D look).

And don't forget 70-200L/4.0 IS also can be used on 36mp Sony A7R as I do. A few samples below,

color tonalityTrue the larger pixels help. But again Canon is 5 year behind in technology. so no gain here.

and rarely mentioned perspective (more 3-D look).The thinner depth of field has created this myth. Leica and Zeiss fans also use this myth. Yes if you have a very smooth apochromatic lens with thin depth of field you can create this very nice look. But it has nothing to do with fullframe. Well the thinner DOF is easier to obtain on larger sensors.

Using Canon glass on the A7r seems to be the way forward for long-time Canon landscape shooters.

Smoothness is not just IQ smooth but tonality transition smoothness, from shadow to midtone to highlight. In general, larger sensor better photo smoothness of color tonality.

Also larger sensor, better perspective or more 3-D look alike popping up, less dull and flat look that is not the same as DOF. Hard to measure but you can see and feel.

Although Canon sensors are outdated which mainly reflect in read-noise and DR, I personally still prefer Canon color tonality than A7R's. In daylight or non highly contrasted scenes, there are no much difference between 5D3 and A7R. Not sure if DR related, 5D3 files usually look more popup while I need to add more contrast and Vividy in A7R files. But I do prefer A7R in evening photos in dark sky for example, at least I don't need to clean.

Yeah they are adjusted at the same color temperature. I found A7R files especially in daylight need add more contrast and saturation. But still I did hear some others' claim that higher DR is double-edge sword sometime that Sony sensor has more jumps (less smooth) in tonality transition from shadow to midtone to highlight. As I said hard to be measured but sometime you might be able to see and feel.

Agreed BarnET. And lens' choice and seems 50mp FF sensor indeed is coming. Sony and Nikon will build cameras on the rumored around 50mp Sony sensor. Current 36mp sensor in A7R/D800E/DD810 is more than two years old.

Yeah the diminishing return is even higher with 50mp FF. But there are few best of the best lenses probably can leverage this resolution such as Otus 55/85, Sigma Art lenses and some best lenses from Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Sony...are virtually they are all prime lenses. Otherwise 50mp is more gimmick to most lenses, and you will need higher technique to fully leverage higher resolution. Or you'd have to increase sensor size that will have higher demand in lens design to fully leverage bigger sensor size.

NO as always has advantage over less resolution if others are the same which means no extra penalties if compared at the same output size, but with higher diminishing return and requiring better lens and better techniques to fully leverage higher resolution.

In another words if on the same sensor technology, you gain less and less in this sequence - 12 -> 24mp, 24 -> 36mp and 36 -> 50mp. Better lens and better technique, the gap of difference is smaller.

BarnET...that is why i went with the 645Z. With the lenses available, it offers an advantage over 35mm sensors. That said, I will still continue to add to my Fuji lens lineup as the results are superb.

Is that your method of debate now Peter....just calling anyone you disagree with a liar all the time? By the way, I've posted a number of XT1 and D800 photos on DPReview....you miraculously seem to ignore those posts...LOL. Sorry my gear makes you jealous.

Can you point us your 'D800/X-T1/14-24G' and now '645Z' photos photos. I don't remember anyone ever saw them, just want to see some photos to backup your claims. I will be never jealous anyone's real or bogus gear ;-)

I don't think that 'the sharpest canon 70-200' on full frame will always be the measure for best IQ. The Sigma 50-150 OS is easily on par already (or even better, since it doesn't have a weak spot at 70mm f/4). So if the Fuji comes anything close to the Sigma, it'll be outstanding.

so whats the measure then? if its well corrected but super soft its still considered a great lens?? And no, the sigma 50-150 doesnt come close to any canon 70-200. Or any nikon. Its a good lens at best

Which lens is super soft? Not even the 35-100 is, except for a little wide open at 100mm.Did you actually try the Sigma? Probably not, since you're obviously only shooting FF. Have a look at some reviews like photozone.de or lenstip.com then, but they probably won't convince you, too.

You were the one that suggested that sharpness is irrelevant, and im saying that no matter how you look at it sharpness is first and foremost. And youre dead wrong. Im a m4/3s shooter even professionally, the 35-100 is sharper than most my full frame lenses. I have an A7 and a 1Dmk4 that barely gets any use. I also have 2 copies of the sigma, and i dont need photozone to tell you its an ok lens at the most. But if you insist go down to photozone and compare the 50-150 and see how it gets handily beat by the 35-100. Then go and click on any 70-200 mounted on any full frame. No contest. Reading numbers in photozone can be reassuring, but seeing photos side by side cant be beat

I did not suggest anywhere that sharpness is irrelevant. I suggested that the Fuji might be as good as the Sigma, which has more consistent MTF across zoom range and aperture than the Panasonic. And I compared the Sigma (which I own) to the 70-200 f/4 Canon (from a friend) and found the sharpness to be on par. Thus I don't see any reason why the Fuji might not be better than the Canon, because the Sigma "already comes close" or is "as good already" (take your pick). And then again there's no reason to compare the Panasonic to the Fuji, because they're calculated for different image circles, exploiting the inherent size advantage.

"Combined with a camera body, the lens is approximately 60% of the weight of a full-size system". Mirrorless camera makes more sense with crop sensor. 1.5 crop system seem to be most balanced between weight & size and performance. It budget allows, I definitely go Fuji over Sony full frame system.

I guess you referred to the Sony 70-200 F/4 OSS. Note that Fuji is F2.8, and still is F2.8 equivalent on full frame in term of light absorbance. For me it makes more sense than depth of field. F5.6 at 213 mm is good enough to obtain creamy bokeh :).

Latest in-depth reviews

The Hasselblad X1D-50c is a mirrorless medium format camera from one of the most famous camera brands of the 20th century. Following a series of feature-enhancing firmware updates we've been able to complete our review.

The LG G7 ThinQ is a flagship device with a dual camera that departs from the norm: rather than the usual tele/wide combo, it offers wide and super-wide angle lenses. While it doesn't produce class-leading image quality, it's a solid option if you favor wide-angle shooting.

The Fujifilm X-T100 is the company's least expensive X-series camera to include an electronic viewfinder. It shares most of its guts with the entry-level X-A5, including its hybrid AF system and 24MP sensor and, unfortunately, its 4K/15p video mode.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at seven current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

Alex and Kathryn are photographers, friends and Tokyo residents who love exploring Japan's hidden cultural treasures. They each brought a Canon EOS M50 on a recent trip starting in bustling Tokyo and ending in the peaceful riverside town of Gujo Hachiman.

Canon's latest 70-200mm F4L comes with a five stops of image stabilization, a new coat of paint and impressive sharpness. We've been shooting with our copy for several weeks now - see how it stacks up in our sample gallery.

Special 4K and 6K Photo modes may be one of the most under-appreciated features on recent cameras. In this week's episode, Chris and Jordan take a closer look at these modes and explain why – and when – you'll be glad to have them on your camera.

Ten years ago this month Panasonic and Olympus announced a new concept called Micro Four Thirds. We're now on the brink of full-frame mirrorless from at least one major player, so perhaps it's a good time to take a look back at where it all started – and how far we've come.

At a high-profile launch event in New York, Samsung took the wraps off its next Note device. The Galaxy Note 9 borrows the S9+'s 12MP dual-aperture dual-cam, with OIS in both cameras and an emphasis on AI-enhanced shooting modes.

One of the most keenly-awaited lenses for a while, the new Pentax D FA* 50mm F1.4 is finally here, and we've been using it for a few days. In this article, we're updating our initial impressions on the basis of our recent shooting with the K-1 II.

This week we take a look at one of the most unusual optics we've seen for quite a while. The Laowa 24mm F14 Macro Probe lens may look like something out of a science fiction movie, but as Chris and Jordan discover, it opens the door to some pretty cool photo opportunities.

GoPro has revealed its Q2 2018 financial results, boasting a massive 40% quarter-over-quarter revenue increase to $283 million and net loss of $32 million, which the company says is a 51% sequential improvement.